Search This Blog

Sec.340 and 195 Cr.P.C. - application by Accused who convicted under Sec.376 & 506 I.P.C. - Acquitted under sec.201 I.P.C. - for prosecuting the prosecution agency - Sessions court dismissed the application - their lordship held that different statements at different stages of the case made by the public prosecutor would amount to any offence attracting the provision of Section 340 CrPC and By no stretch of imagination, can we say that the stand of a counsel, howsoever inconsistent it may be at different stages of the proceedings, can amount to offences adverted to under Section 195 CrPC. and like wise mere contradiction in evidence can amount to offences adverted to under sec.195 Cr.P.C. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

The petitioner has been charge sheeted for offences underSection 376, 506 and 201 IPC and after a full fledged trial he hasbeen convicted for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC,but was acquitted of the offence under Section 201 IPC, by theSessions Court. Pending Appeal against the Conviction -The above said accused filed an application under sec.340 & 195 of Cr.P.C for prosecution of prosecuting agencies for the contradictions in the deposition run over.1) Take cognizance of this matter, conduct inquiriesas required, give specific finding and register acriminal complaint with the appropriateinvestigating agency against the prospectiveaccused as detailed in this application and dealwith the matter as per law enshrined in Section340 and 195 of the Cr.P.C. in the interest ofjustice.2) Call for the relevant General Diary, Case Diary andother records from CCS as this Honble Courtdeems necessary to corroborate the culpability ofthe IO as has been discussed in this petition.3) Take appropriate steps to immediately suspend thesaid accused Government officers in order toensure free and fair inquiry, investigation and trial.

whether the differentstatements at different stages of the case made by thepublic prosecutor would amount to any offence attractingthe provision of Section 340 CrPC whether the differentstatements at different stages of the case made by thepublic prosecutor would amount to any offence attractingthe provision of Section 340 CrPC. We repeatedly asked therespondent as to how two different stands taken by acounsel would be covered by the offences referred to inprovisions of Section 195 CrPC. He tried to explain thatthere is distinction between submissions made on law andon facts. Submissions based on facts, which would affectthe life and liberty of innocent persons are not legalsubmissions but would amount to causing circumstancesto exist so as to amount to fabricating evidence within themeaning of Section 192 IPC. Supposing a counsel presents a preposterousargument or blatantly wrong argument which, he later oncorrects himself on realizing the incorrectness of hissubmission or in a converse situation, having made acorrect argument realising that the same would defeat theclaim of his client, takes a diametrically opposite stand,could it be said that the said stand would lead tofabricating evidence before the court in any manner whichattracts the offences adverted to under Section 195 CrPC.By no stretch of imagination, can we say that the stand of acounsel, howsoever inconsistent it may be at differentstages of the proceedings, can amount to offences advertedto under Section 195 CrPC. If the courts begin to issuenotice for prosecution or as to why the inquiry should notbe made in the matter or to launch a prosecution, noAdvocate can function with safety nor can he assist thecourt with the necessary fearlessness which is required ofhim.It is not unknown that even in criminal cases evenafter committal proceedings are over at the stage ofsessions trial before charges are framed by the court or atthe stage of final arguments, many public prosecutors haveentered NOLLE PROSEQUI in cases where they thought that a charge could not be framed or the concerned accusedshould be acquitted. However, that does not mean thatsuch a stand could not have been taken or attracts wrath ofSection 340 CrPC. The petitioner is making a serious attempt in trying to makeout a case by adverting to some contradictions brought out in thedeposition of a Doctor, who examined the victim girl whenproduced before her, upon registering the crime on her report.Similarly, he is trying to point out some contradictions in thedeposition of the investigation officer. On such a score, he wantsthem to be prosecuted.

During the course ofcross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of theprosecution, the petitioner/appellant may have succeeded toextract certain contradictions and so long as those contradictionshave no bearing upon the substantial mis-demnor of the petitioner,the Court is bound to ignore the same from serious consideration.Only on a substantial issue, should there be fabrication of evidenceor tendering of false evidence knowing it be really so, then thesituation warrants initiation of proceedings, otherwise, theprecious time of the Court would be lost in pursuing the trivialeaving aside the substantial issues. The role of the Court, which was to deal with the applicationunder Section 340 is not to record any finding as to whether anyoffence was committed or who committed the same. It is onlyintended for it to form an opinion that the witness has eitherintentionally given false evidence or produced fabricated evidence.Further, it is for the Court to firm up its opinion that it isexpedient, in the interests of justice to prosecute the witness.Therefore, to the extent that the petitioner herein prayed thelearned Sessions Court to record a finding against the prospectiveaccused persons named by him, it is completely ill founded and

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …